Aerial view of the Virgo site showing the Mode-Cleaner building, the Central building, the three kilometer-long west arm and the beginning of the north arm. The other buildings include offices, workshops, computer rooms and the control room of the interferometer. Credit: The Virgo collaboration/CCO 1.0

In August, detectors on two continents recorded gravitational wave signals from a pair of black holes colliding. This discovery, announced today, is the first observation of gravitational waves by three different detectors, marking a new era of greater insights and improved localization of cosmic events now available through globally networked gravitational-wave observatories.

The collision was observed Aug. 14 at 10:30:43 a.m. Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) using the two National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors located in Livingston, Louisiana, and Hanford, Washington, and the Virgo detector, funded by CNRS and INFN and located near Pisa, Italy.

The detection by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) and the Virgo collaboration is the first confirmed gravitational wave signal recorded by the Virgo detector. A paper about the event, a collision designated GW170814, has been accepted for publication in the journal Physical Review Letters.

"Little more than a year and a half ago, NSF announced that its Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory had made the first-ever detection of gravitational waves, which resulted from the collision of two black holes in a galaxy a billion light-years away," said NSF Director France Córdova. "Today, we are delighted to announce the first discovery made in partnership between the Virgo gravitational-wave observatory and the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the first time a gravitational wave detection was observed by these observatories, located thousands of miles apart. This is an exciting milestone in the growing international scientific effort to unlock the extraordinary mysteries of our universe."

LIGO operates two detector sites -- one near Hanford in eastern Washington, and another near Livingston, Louisiana. The Livingston detector site is pictured here. Credit: LIGO Collaboration

The detected gravitational waves—ripples in space and time—were emitted during the final moments of the merger of two black holes, one with a mass about 31 times that of our sun, the other about 25 times the mass of the sun. The event, located about 1.8 billion light-years away resulted in a spinning black hole with about 53 times the mass of our sun—that means about three solar masses were converted into gravitational-wave energy during the coalescence.

"This is just the beginning of observations with the network enabled by Virgo and LIGO working together," says LSC spokesperson David Shoemaker of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). "With the next observing run planned for fall 2018, we can expect such detections weekly or even more often."

LIGO has transitioned into a second-generation gravitational-wave detector, known as Advanced LIGO, that consists of two identical interferometers. Beginning operations in September 2015, Advanced LIGO has conducted two observing runs. The second observing run, "O2," began Nov. 30, 2016, and ended Aug. 25, 2017.

The Virgo detector, also now a second-generation detector, joined the O2 run Aug. 1, 2017 at 10 a.m. UTC. The real-time detection Aug. 14 was triggered with data from all three LIGO and Virgo instruments.

View of the LIGO detector in Hanford, Washington. LIGO research is carried out by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, a group of more than 1,000 scientists from universities around the US and 14 other countries. Credit: LIGO Laboratory
"It is wonderful to see a first gravitational-wave signal in our brand new Advanced Virgo detector only two weeks after it officially started taking data," says Jo van den Brand of Nikhef and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, spokesperson of the Virgo collaboration. "That's a great reward after all the work done in the Advanced Virgo project to upgrade the instrument over the past six years."

When an event is detected by a three-detector network, the area in the sky likely to contain the source shrinks significantly, improving distance accuracy. The sky region for GW170814 has a size of only 60 square degrees, more than 10 times smaller than the size using data available from the two LIGO interferometers alone.

"With this first joint detection by the Advanced LIGO and Virgo detectors, we have taken one step further into the gravitational-wave cosmos," says Caltech's David H. Reitze, executive director of the LIGO Laboratory. "Virgo brings a powerful new capability to detect and better locate gravitational-wave sources, one that will undoubtedly lead to exciting and unanticipated results in the future."

Related Stories

Penn State LIGO physicists are members of the LIGO-Virgo collaboration to detect and characterize gravitational waves. The collaboration now is completing a very exciting Second Observing Run that is drawing to a close on ...

The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) broke the news almost one year ago about the first-ever direct observation of gravitational waves. Now, LIGO scientists hope that this year could yield even more ...

Black holes can be divided into three classes according to mass. On the low end are those with masses 10 times that of the sun. Examples are the two black holes whose merger generated the first gravitational wave to be detected, ...

On February 11th, 2016, scientists at the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) announced the first detection of gravitational waves. This development, which confirmed a prediction made by Einstein's ...

The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) has made a third detection of gravitational waves, ripples in space and time, demonstrating that a new window in astronomy has been firmly opened. As was the ...

Recommended for you

Past studies have found that a variety of complex networks, from biological systems to social media networks, can exhibit universal topological characteristics. These universal characteristics, however, do not always translate ...

Metasurfaces are two-dimensional (2-D) metamaterials that can control scattering waves of a light beam. Their applications include thin-sheet polarizers, beam splitters, beam steerers and lenses. These structures can control ...

The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) was launched on April 18 of last year with the primary objective of discovering transiting planets smaller than Neptune around stars bright enough for spectroscopic investigations ...

A pair of researchers at Purdue University has found a way to use a diatomic Ni-Ni catalyst to synthesize cyclopentenes. In their paper published in the journal Science, You-Yun Zhou and Christopher Uyeda describe their method ...

Photocatalysts – materials that trigger chemical reactions when hit by light – are important in a number of natural and industrial processes, from producing hydrogen for fuel to enabling photosynthesis.

Neutron stars are among the densest-known objects in the universe, withstanding pressures so great that one teaspoon of a star's material would equal about 15 times the weight of the moon. Yet as it turns out, protons—the ...

135 comments

Neutron stars (with an optical counterpart) needed higher sensitivity on the part of Virgo, so now LIGO-Virgo change their mind and announce another BH merger (very massive because Virgo is less sensitive!) on 14 August 2017. Seems 14 is a very auspicious date ordained by the LIGOD! WHAT A FARCE of signal injection! In legal language it is called an act of "improvement". Congratulations to the spin doctors of LIGO-Virgo, indeed. However, gradually the farcical loom of the Emperor's New Clothes is showing up.

Indeed. Ordinarily nothing could escape a black hole, and I'm wondering how this happens. Do the two black holes stretch towards each other so that for a moment some portion of them extends beyond the event horizon? Three solar masses is a not inconsiderable percentage of the original two objects to have disappear into energy.

As we get more and more gravity wave detections, and more and more confirmations of the reality of black holes, the various skeptics will appear more and more crazy. Well, they probably ARE crazy. But I guess they could still be nice people...

Indeed. Ordinarily nothing could escape a black hole, and I'm wondering how this happens. Do the two black holes stretch towards each other so that for a moment some portion of them extends beyond the event horizon? Three solar masses is a not inconsiderable percentage of the original two objects to have disappear into energy.

It is a misnomer to believe that anything is actually escaping. What is happening is that the spacetime between the black holes is emitting the energy. Emission stops when the black holes are fully merged.

"The collision was observed Aug. 14 at 10:30:43 a.m. Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) using the two National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors"

Just how do gravity wave detectors OBSERVE a stellar mass of any size?

"The collision was observed", so they've got a picture right? Of two stellar objects 31 & 25 times the mass of our Sun colliding & merging?

I do know what a laser interferometer gravity detector is, and it is incapable of taking a picture, so how do they know that the gravity field detectors recorded a merger of BHs? It could just as well have been a couple of small galaxies partially or fully hidden behind an intergalactic dust cloud?

Nope, not open. All there is is an abstract, and it's going to need some editing. I was unable to find out how quick the follow-ups were.

Moving right along, it looks like we can expect to see about one of these per year. As more gravitational wave observatories come online, we can expect to get more and more finely tuned polarization information, and more and more localized observations; with a networked set of GWOs, we can expect to be able to identify whether there is a host galaxy for each event. This will be interesting, because being able to identify a particular galaxy will allow us to determine for sure whether these events are occurring within galaxies, which would confirm that they are from binary black holes created by binary core collapse supernovae, or deny it if we don't find them inside galaxies. [contd]

[contd]It's worth keeping in mind that as we continue this, detection windows will become smaller and smaller, and we are more and more likely to be able to do follow-up obervations within seconds or minutes of a GW detection; if there are any follow-on events, we will become more and more likely to see them. A complete absence of follow-on events would be a very high significance indication that these are indeed binary black hole mergers, since other types of events would produce significant follow-on, and we know this from GRBs which have relatively long term follow-ons. So far no follow-on energetic event has been detected to explain these GW detections in the EM spectrum.

Also, there are questions as to whether these are events caused by two black holes being created by a binary pair of core collapse supernovae, or black holes from SNe that later formed a pair. Polarization will tell us this.

It is a misnomer to believe that anything is actually escaping. What is happening is that the spacetime between the black holes is emitting the energy. Emission stops when the black holes are fully merged.

@Parsec this is actually pretty interesting because the energy comes out of the mass of the merging BHs. This strongly indicates that mass is being transmuted into energy during these mergers. This in turn argues that the contents of a BH are no longer representative of the things that fell into it, and that entropy is consumed by BHs as mass and energy are consumed by the BH. The entropy cannot be retrieved since matter has been converted into GW energy and the energy is randomized.

This is probably an appropriate thread to discuss the issues of BHs and entropy.

there are questions as to whether these are events caused by two black holes being created by a binary pair of core collapse supernovae, or black holes from SNe that later formed a pair. Polarization will tell us this.

Oh no "Polarization" will tell us no such thing Schneibo.

it's obvious you don't know how that analyses is done because in this case it STARTS with an ASSUMPTION, and when data analyses starts with an ASSUMPTION it's almost a sure bet mistakes will follow, that's why we don't do analyses with built-in assumptions in our Gamma Spectroscopy lab that I oversight.

I'm not going to waste my time or others' arguing with #physicscranks like @Lenni and @anadish who don't "believe in" BHs. I suggest they get a clue and study GRT. Good luck with that, particularly for @Lenni who doesn't understand simultaneous PDEs.

As more and more BH mergers are detected the #physicscranks will be increasingly marginalized. Evidence always trumps #physicscranks.

It's gravity (i.e. warping of spacetime)..not a 'substance' that escapes.

That's an interesting observation (no pun intended). If gravity has a force-carrier particle (the hypothetical graviton), how would this work? Are the gravity waves created by gravitons *outside* the event horizon of the merging black holes (whatever its shape might be when they actually begin to merge)?

That the mass-energy contained by the two black holes is lessened once they merge, would seem to imply that the "missing" mass-energy of the merged black holes is converted into these force-carriers, but that mass-energy, I think by definition, occurs only within the event horizon and therefore the gravitons shouldn't be able to escape?

I'm intrigued by this and wondered if you might be able to explain further? (Well, hypothesize further, I guess, since nobody actually knows how the mergers occur or if gravitons exist

Schneibo, ENTROPY is not a consumable commodity. Your knowledge of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is zilch.

The entropy cannot be retrieved

.....because it was NEVER a consumable commodity to begin with, you absolutely don't know what ENTROPY is, but why should we be surprised, you've never taken a Thermodynamics course.

since matter has been converted into GW energy

The Laws of Conservation of Energy make no allusions to your assertion that "matter" can be converted into "GW energy", matter can only be TRANSFORMED to ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY but not to gravity. Hey, old dude, maybe you can tell us where in Einstein's General or Special Relativity we can find these things?

Don't just be shooting your mouth off about these things you keep pulling off the top of your head, quote for us the sections of General Relativity & 2nd Law of Thermodynamics so we can find all this exotic slop & swill you postulate.

I'm not going to waste my time or others' arguing with #physicscranks like @Lenni and @anadish who don't "believe in" BHs. I suggest they get a clue and study GRT.

Yeah you should Schneibo, and everytime I challenge to quote the section of General Relativity in which you claim Einstein laid the groundwork for existence of BHs, you instantly go dumb & silent, same when I link to this paper Einstein wrote in 1939 in which he thoroughly trashed Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math:

Get over it old dude, you're just not smart enough to fool as many people as you think you can with trying to come up with a new Law of Physics called CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY, capiche? Probably not, those of you in the perpetual motion crowd living here never do.

I'm not going to waste my time or others' arguing with #physicscranks like @Lenni and @anadish who don't "believe in" BHs. I suggest they get a clue and study GRT. Good luck with that, particularly for @Lenni who doesn't understand simultaneous PDEs.

As more and more BH mergers are detected the #physicscranks will be increasingly marginalized. Evidence always trumps #physicscranks.

I never said BHs do not exist. To sum up all that I said, interferometry cannot detect cosmic origin GW due to these main reasons. 1. [proven], there is too much man-made synthetic GW noise around, 2. [unproven], speed of gravity is infinite (gravity is from quantum gravity).

The detected gravitational waves—ripples in space and time—were emitted during the final moments of the merger of two black holes, one with a mass about 31 times that of our sun, the other about 25 times the mass of the sun. The event, located about 1.8 billion light-years away resulted in a spinning black hole with about 53 times the mass of our sun—that means about three solar masses were converted into gravitational-wave energy during the coalescence.

Above description is that of first wave detected by the LIGO people in February 2016 OR the one detected by LIGO and Virgo people in this week? Please clarify.

The detected gravitational waves—ripples in space and time—were emitted during the final moments of the merger of two black holes, one with a mass about 31 times that of our sun, the other about 25 times the mass of the sun. The event, located about 1.8 billion light-years away resulted in a spinning black hole with about 53 times the mass of our sun—that means about three solar masses were converted into gravitational-wave energy during the coalescence.

Above description is that of first wave detected by the LIGO people in February 2016 OR the one detected by LIGO and Virgo people in this week? Please clarify.

Are the gravity waves created by gravitons *outside* the event horizon of the merging black holes

Can't really tell. From what I get gravitons are still very hypothetical

That the mass-energy contained by the two black holes is lessened once they merge, would seem to imply that the "missing" mass-energy of the merged black holes is converted into these force-carriers, but that mass-energy, occurs only within the event horizon and therefore the gravitons shouldn't be able to escape?

For now I would stick with warping of spacetime as being 'gravity'. Since that is what was measured.

Gravitons are quantumphysical constructs. As such they could tunnel(?)Which might give them the ability to cross the event horizon. But this is really beyond my experience since spacetime inside the event horizon is not as straightforward as outside as there are no longer any inertial reference frames and r becomes the timelike coordinate (not t). It gets too weird.

Here's the deal with gravitons: You know how photons, in large numbers, form classical electric and magnetic fields? Same thing with 'gravitons.' Gravitons, in large numbers, form the classical Space-Time curvature field. So there's still no issue with them "escaping" a black hole because they are the thing themselves that make up the curvature of a black hole.

Don't think of gravitons as the "force carrier of gravity" like a photon. The field they're associated with is space-time curvature. Which can, in some cases, produce an effect that we used to think was a force, that we called gravity. If you do a potential-free Lagrangian in a curved spacetime (Schwarzschild metric) you will see a fictitious force appear in an equation that doesn't have a force, much like "Centrifugal" forces appear in physics calculated in rotating reference frames.

Warping of spacetime as being 'gravity. J.O. Weatherall's book - Void: the Strange Physics of Nothing, 2016, Uale U.P. Physicists associate warping of spacetime with gravity. We can gravitational force very easily but cannot feel warping / curving of space. this is becaise space means a matter-free sone and therefore we cannot sense space / void. So Space-Time continuum (STC) is still an enigma, even in 21st century. A common man can counter our belief in Einstein's STC by challenging as follows.

We, physicists, do not believe in ghosts as they cannot be sensed. Then why physicists believe in Einstein's STC because we do not have sensory organs for space and time both. As the discovery of gravitational waves is based on ripples caused on the STC, physicists will have to clarify public's objection, in the fore-going comparison of STC with ghost.

I'm sorry, I see little point in arguing the characteristics of black holes with a #physicscrank who claims not to "believe in" them.

Well put Schneibo..........anyone who does not comprehend the the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (ENTROPY) should stay away from Black Hole Theory, because the two are contradictory to one another, of course you could only know this if you've actually studied Thermodynamics in a college classroom like I have & like YOU HAVE NOT.

I've noticed that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a bit like Godwin's Law, an argument pulled out of the drawer when the poster really has no argument left. This is doubly true when the poster is claiming that another poster "doesn't understand" how the 2nd Law works while they themselves try to apply it to systems smaller than the universe.

...oh, won't this just be so much fun, a freelance journalist entertaining us with another one of his hypothethicals,..OK Shavo, let the entertainment begin:

You know how photons, in large numbers, form classical electric and magnetic fields? Same thing with 'gravitons.' Gravitons,

No, don't go there suggesting CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY, that gravity can have TRANSFORMATION CHARACTERISTICS. Maybe you have a test tube full of these gravitons by which you can prove such things exist?

The LIGO guys think gravity exists in the form of WAVES not MASSLESS PARTICLES. What makes you so much smarter than the LIGO guys? That you're a freelance journalist with a lot of spare time on your hands you don't know what to do with?

do a potential-free Lagrangian in a curved spacetime (Schwarzschild metric) you will see a fictitious force appear in an equation that doesn't have a force,

I don't say one way or the other whether gravitons do or do not exist. I am simply trying to provide an answer to those who don't understand what is proposed by physicists when they talk about gravitons, and why that difference matters in terms of being able to 'escape' a black hole. I personally suspect they exist, but that we don't have enough data to help pin down a good mathematical model to describe them. But that's just a personal belief.

There's literally no meaning in "conservation of gravity" as I have often said. But keep throwing around meaningless phrases. It does, in fact, make you look like you know what you're talking about.

And the "LIGO guys" are certainly describing classical waves, but QED allows for classical EM waves while at the same time talking about those waves being made up of smaller wave quanta with discrete momentum. (see also: Photoelectric effect) These observations don't yet say one way or another about gravitons, admittedly.

Benni, as a friend of mine likes to say when he sees me posting here: "You are arguing with blind people about the color of the rainbow that you can see".

.......I mean, just look at the content of this Schneibo clown about ENTROPY, and how would you like to make a bet Shavo 5 Starred it?

@ shavo .....

There's literally no meaning in "conservation of gravity" as I have often said

.... yeah, like after you got one damned hard lecture from me when you were trying to twist words within one of my posts about TRANSFER of gravity when TRANSFORMATION of Mass/Energy occurs, you tried to twist that into CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY when I made no allusions to the effect that gravity has transformative properties.

Yep you're right Benni. You sure showed me what's what. What with your ALL CAPS CATCH PHRASES, I'm sure cowed by your 'damned hard lecture' you claim to have given. I mean of course I'll just have to take your word for it like everything else, because of course you are the smartest of all interneters. I'll just have to assume that you know what you're talking about, since you never actually define what you mean by CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY, because such a phrase has never appeared in any of my physics courses.

Here's 10000000 internet points to you, oh great knower of physics. You have truly won this competition fairly and surely.

the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a bit like Godwin's Law, an argument pulled out of the drawer when the poster really has no argument left. doubly true when the poster is claiming that another poster "doesn't understand" how the 2nd Law works while they themselves try to apply it to systems smaller than the universe.

Ok then Mr Expert on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, supposing you explain to this over educated science professional how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (ENTROPY) gets a PASS when it comes to BHs?

Schneibo tried to lecture us that ENTROPY can be "consumed", that ENTROPY is somehow a consumable property of matter. All the books I used in Engineering School would need to be 100% rewritten to fit Schneibo's explanation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY.

OK, you want to be the 2nd Schneibo, so just you walk out on that sagging limb & see how long it can hold up with two of you now standing on it, you'd better hope Perpetual Motion is for real..

since you never actually define what you mean by CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY,

Of course a play on words such as CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY is totally lost on you. Hell's bells man, you still have yet to reach the level of CONSERVATION OF ENERGY & the reality of it's TRANSFORMATIVE properties proven by Einstein in Special Relativity 1905, and now you want to piddle around espousing CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY without telling us what gravity can TRANSFORM to?

You're the one proposing CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY without actually uttering the two words. You think there are these little graviton particles just sort of laying around all over the place snagging onto things like some kind of glue to keep other things from getting away, that somehow these little critters can TRANSFORM into a wave of some kind?

Tell us more about that Introductory Thermodynamics course you took in Grad School......like did it have any math in it?

It's ok little buddy. I already told you you won. Look at all the internet points you won even! I bet if you print this out and take it to your science teacher, they might even give you some extra credit for your skilled physics knowing!

......but I'm still curious about that introductory thermodynamics course you took in Grad School.......did it have any math content to it? Did ENTROPY ever come up? Enthalpy? C'mon here, don't leave me out on the same limb you & Schneibo are standing on, I don't believe in Perpetual Motion & I know sooner or later it will break & I don't want that happening with you two clowns for company.

Well, apparently around 3 solar masses can transform into gravity waves so it's likely that the process works both ways, doncha think?

Via what Fundamental Law of Physics can "3 solar masses can transform into gravity waves"? So far only Shavo thinks CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY is a Fundamental Law of Physics, I guess he learned that in his Introductory Thermodynamics course in Grad School, so where did you learn it?

There's literally no sense in discussing science with you if you're going to keep putting words in my mouth that I never said and don't believe. 1) The black hole entropy question has several proposed resolutions, but obviously we don't have the data to distinguish yet which one may yet be right.2) what law: Mass is the Lorentz invariant quantity of 4-momentum. So obviously energy can be lorentz-boosted to momentum, so long as the mass of the system stays the same.3) Again, I don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about 'conservation of gravity.' There's no 'conservation of light' even though light is made of particles. We don't know the details of the couplings, but if gravitons do exist, they would be created by coupling to other particles just like photons are. Because they're bosons.

I still don't know what you're on about about my "thermodynamics course." But, I mean, if you get a kick out of having illogical arguments on the internet, like I said, you won!!!

[Really? Now you're telling us that the visible portion of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Spectrum is made up of "particles", particles in case you never knew it is MASS.

In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force).

I think you have a typo there. I think you meant to say that you didn't have a clue about this stuff, because it's obvious you're just a high school physics student trying to say words you think physicists say.

.then why did you ever concoct such a terminology

Never did, Again, that's you putting words into my mouth and being entirely unwilling to back up anything you say.

particles in case you never knew it is MASS.

Again, if you want to invent new meanings for words beyond what physicists mean, please feel free to. A particle, in physics, is a quantized excitation of a field. Some of these particles couple to the Higgs field and gain mass, but not all do.

Look, in a few years, after you've had some introductory undergrad physics classes, you'll understand and just look back on this as a whole bunch of silliness.

Again, if you want to invent new meanings for words beyond what physicists mean, please feel free to. A particle, in physics, is a quantized excitation of a field. Some of these particles couple to the Higgs field and gain mass, but not all do.

Look, in a few years, after you've had some introductory undergrad physics classes, you'll understand and just look back on this as a whole bunch of silliness.

There's no 'conservation of light' even though light is made of particles

.........how is it you brag about taking Physics courses yet don't know that no part of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Spectrum is made of "particles, MASS? Huh, Shavo? Explain how this works? Explain for us overeducated science professionals why your view of science is so superior to the known Fundamental Laws of Physics that you can't even get the definition of light energy right?

I did explain, several times throughout this whole discussion. Quantum Field Theory defines particles as quantized excitations of a field. If you'd like the word to mean something else, then we cannot discuss it further. Quantized excitations in the limit of very large numbers, behave like classical fields with classical waves. Not all Quantized excitations have mass. Some do.

Some quantized excitations, bosons, don't have a fixed number that is conserved. Photons are bosons. Gravitons, if they exist, are bosons. I, to this day, do not know at all what you mean by your phrase, not mine, of "conservation of gravity" but I assume it's something like you say above where there's a fixed number of them, so I tried to draw a parallel with photons, which similarly do not have a fixed number. But again, if you could simply describe what your words mean, maybe we could have an adult conversation. Because the result I see when I search "conservation of gravity" is a physics joke thing.

Your mistake, @shavera, was accepting @Lenni, who lies about being a nuclear engineer when it is actually not even a technician, as a physicist. This individual is a #physicscrank and should be dismissed as such. I have tried addressing it and educating it and all it does is make up specious lies to try to deny reality. Don't waste your time, is my advice.

Oh I know they are lying about it. It's definitely obvious that they're a high school student, at best. I remember being that age and thinking I'd understood physics from pop-sci articles and magazines. And you can just shuffle the words you think physicists say around a bit, "particles" and "waves" and "conservation," but they're missing all the Shibboleth phrases you can really identify someone who's had advanced physics classes.

So Benni, good luck in school tomorrow, and I do sincerely hope your science teacher gives you some bonus points in class for your excellent science sounding.

Your mistake, @shavera, was accepting @Lenni, who lies about being a nuclear engineer when it is actually not even a technician, as a physicist. This individual is a #physicscrank and should be dismissed as such. I have tried addressing it and educating it and all it does is make up specious lies to try to deny reality. Don't waste your time, is my advice.

......this coming from the guy who stated:

and that entropy is consumed by BHs

The entropy cannot be retrieved

since matter has been converted into GW energy

.....these things while making this piece of pseudo-science:

This strongly indicates that mass is being transmuted into energy during these mergers. This in turn argues that the contents of a BH are no longer representative of things that fell into it, and that entropy is consumed by BHs as mass and energy are consumed by the BH. The entropy cannot be retrieved since matter has been converted into GW energy

There's no 'conservation of light' even though light is made of particles

.........how is it you brag about taking Physics courses yet don't know that no part of the Electro-Magnetic Energy Spectrum is made of "particles, MASS? Huh, Shavo? Explain how this works? Explain for us overeducated science professionals why your view of science is so superior to the known Fundamental Laws of Physics that you can't even get the definition of light energy right?

There's no 'conservation of light' even though light is made of particles

.........then he & jonesy start talking about VIRTUAL PARTICLES as if VIRTUAL does not mean what the definition of the word plainly states that it is with synonyms such as: simulated, artificial, imitation, make-believe.

Since the previous claimed LIGO gravitational wave 'detection' event supposedly involving two black holes 3 billion light years away, I have asked those who 'believe' such a claim to demonstrate via maths that a gravitational wave generated by a source so far away would actually 'arrive here' at all, let alone be 'detectable above random grav-wave/perturbation 'noise' from all the many nearer sources such as in-spiraling Neutron Stars etc binaries.

So far, neither antialias nor Da Schneib have provided the necessary maths to support the claim that the quadrupole component of said waves from so far away would persist/posses sufficient 'signal strength' to be detected 'here' as claimed by the LIGO team. Maybe anti and DS cannot find the relevant maths in the scientific literature underpinning the LIGO expectations/claims/modeling etc?

It would help the discussion if maybe you could find/link to said maths for the forum, shavera? It would be greatly appreciated. :)

So far, neither antialias nor Da Schneib have provided the necessary maths to support the claim that the quadrupole component of said waves from so far away would persist/posses sufficient 'signal strength' to be detected 'here' as claimed by the LIGO team.

Since when has a place like this become the proving ground for science? Why should commenters here have to provide the maths? Here's a thought; ask the LIGO team if you're really interested! Do you seriously think that they would spend gazillions on these projects if the maths didn't say they had a chance?Try this, for instance:https://arxiv.org...2502.pdf

Since when has a place like this become the proving ground for science?

........and you are one who is the epitome of this statement.

Huh? You and others are the loons who think that you are some sort of geniuses, who are challenging far smarter people than yourselves (i.e. real scientists) by posting your drivel on here. If you were really smart, you'd be writing papers within the scientific literature to challenge these real scientists. Nobody gives a rat's arse what is posted on a place such as this. It has zero impact. It is an irrelevance. Real scientists are out there doing real science. The likes of saddos like you think that you are somehow taking it to the man by posting on a sci-news comments section! Think about it! Very sad and pathetic. When was the last time you saw this place referenced in a scientific paper? Never has, never will be. Meanwhile, real science marches on, totally oblivious to the tripe that cranks post on here.

Nobody gives a rat's arse what is posted on a place such as this. It has zero impact.

So why then are you such a zealot for posting here? If it's such a rest stop for "saddos", that must include yourself.......Right?

I come here to read the latest science news. The majority of comments I make are in reply to the aforementioned tripe. If there was no tripe, I wouldn't comment, other than the occasional "interesting story" type remark. I certainly don't come here to tell everyone that the scientists have got it all wrong, and I'm going to tell them why. If I was smart enough to do that, I'd be doing it in the appropriate place. Where it might get noticed.

So far, neither antialias nor Da Schneib have provided the necessary maths to support the claim that the quadrupole component of said waves from so far away would persist/posses sufficient 'signal strength' to be detected 'here' as claimed by the LIGO team.

Since when has a place like this become the proving ground for science? Why should commenters here have to provide the maths?Try this, for instance:https://arxiv.org...2502.pdf

Double standards, mate (how many times have you/DS etc 'demanded the maths' from 'the cranks'?

Where is the maths that proves a DISTANT source gravitational wave signal will actually reach 'here' in sufficient 'signal strength' to be discerned above the MANY MORE nearer-sourced gravitational waves; especially from previously claimed BH 'merger' 3 BILLION LYs away?

Where is the maths that proves a DISTANT source gravitational wave signal will actually reach 'here' in sufficient 'signal strength' to be discerned above the MANY MORE nearer-sourced gravitational waves; especially from previously claimed BH 'merger' 3 BILLION LYs away?

!!!ASK THE LIGO TEAM!!! Get it? It's of no relevance whatsoever what people post on here, in case you haven't noticed. Go find the maths yourself. There are oodles of papers out there.Or just email the lead author on one of them and ask for guidance of where to find it. Nothing, repeat nothing, is going to be settled in a bloody comments section.

Where is the maths that proves a DISTANT source gravitational wave signal will actually reach 'here' in sufficient 'signal strength' to be discerned above the MANY MORE nearer-sourced gravitational waves; especially from previously claimed BH 'merger' 3 BILLION LYs away?

!!!ASK THE LIGO TEAM!!! Get it? It's of no relevance whatsoever what people post on here, in case you haven't noticed. Go find the maths yourself. There are oodles of papers out there.Or just email the lead author on one of them and ask for guidance of where to find it. Nothing, repeat nothing, is going to be settled in a bloody comments section.

You miss the point of discussion/comment section, mate. Since you/etc argue FOR the LIGO claims, it is incumbent on you/etc to support your argument; in this case by linking the maths as requested. Otherwise you prove your presence here is to troll/insult/evade rather than engage fairly on the science being discussed/commented upon here.

You miss the point of discussion/comment section, mate. Since you/etc argue FOR the LIGO claims, it is incumbent on you/etc to support your argument; in this case by linking the maths as requested. Otherwise you prove your presence here is to troll/insult/evade rather than engage fairly on the science being discussed/commented upon here.

Utter nonsense. The LIGO team are making the claims. If you, or anybody else, think they're wrong, then publish it. It is certainly not incumbent on me, DS or anybody else, who aren't part of the LIGO team, to justify their claims. Those claims are within the scientific literature. As should be any questioning of them. I'm not aware of any. Anything written on here by outsiders is of no relevance.

You miss the point of discussion/comment section, mate. Since you/etc argue FOR the LIGO claims, it is incumbent on you/etc to support your argument; in this case by linking the maths as requested.

Utter nonsense. The LIGO team are making the claims. If you, or anybody else, think they're wrong, then publish it. It is certainly not incumbent on me, DS or anybody else, who aren't part of the LIGO team, to justify their claims. Those claims are within the scientific literature. As should be any questioning of them. I'm not aware of any. Anything written on here by outsiders is of no relevance.

Why the double standards again, mate? And why then keep kneejerking/insulting etc when PO members voice their concerns re possible errors of logics/physics with the reported claims by LIGO?

If it's beneath you engaging with PO members in discussion, then why attack and start/perpetuate personal feuds just because YOU don't want to support your assertions?

They are not, for the final time, MY assertions. They are made by the LIGO team. If you think they're wrong, tell THEM. They have published their work. It is subject to scrutiny and peer review. You and Benji, however, are a couple of anonymous commenters on a comments section. How do you think that discussing it with people who are not on the LIGO team is of any relevance? What difference does it make whether or not I, or anybody else, can be bothered hunting down the mathematical proofs that YOU are asking for? ASK LIGO. Do a search. You are arguing against them, not us. I didn't write the papers, nor anybody else here.Do you now understand the reason why peer reviewed scientific literature exists?

The majority of comments I make are in reply to the aforementioned tripe. If there was no tripe, I wouldn't comment,

You bet, almost the same for me but add to it the ENTERTAINMENT VALUE I get making fun of the Perpetual Motion Mechanics who live here, such as yourself, Schneibo, Shavo, & half a dozen others who are really serious about creating new arguments for perpetual motion.

It's about how much fun it is tying your vapid Perpetual Motion arguments into the configuration of a pretzel that keeps me here, plain pure unadulterated ENTERTAINMENT. For example, Schneibo positing discussions about ENTROPY & you 5 Starring it, yeah, that's ENTERTAINMENT.

Then of course the CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY proponents who argue for it, then turn right around & deny they ever said anything in support of it, while writing such things as:

since matter has been converted into GW energy

then do an about face denying they said it, right Schneibo? Yeah, great entertainment here.

can someone calculate how much our bodies shifted in size when this gravity wave passed through us? are we talking microns, nanometers?

Actually there's no need to calculate it. What you need to know is how much the mirrors in the LIGO and VIRGO sites moved. You'll need to multiply by 2 to get the size change, unless you meant volume which is a little more complicated (not much more). If you look it up on Wikipedia, you'll find the mirrors shift about 10⁻¹⁸ m, which is less than a thousandth the size of a proton. That will get you to your best answer to this question with a minimum of fuss.

Actually there's no need to calculate it. What you need to know is how much the mirrors in the LIGO and VIRGO sites moved. You'll need to multiply by 2 to get the size change, unless you meant volume which is a little more complicated (not much more). If you look it up on Wikipedia, you'll find the mirrors shift about 10⁻¹⁸ m, which is less than a thousandth the size of a proton. That will get you to your best answer to this question with a minimum of fuss.

Hey Schneibo, not a bad Copy & Paste. You need to stick to this kind of posting because when you do anything other than Copy & Paste, your Comments simply become a vapid wasteland of funny farm pseudo-science with your laughable EXPLANATIONS of ENTROPY & CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY.

They are not, for the final time, MY assertions. They are made by the LIGO team. If you think they're wrong, tell THEM. They have published their work. It is subject to scrutiny and peer review.....ASK LIGO. Do a search. You are arguing against them, not us. I didn't write the papers, nor anybody else here.Do you now understand the reason why peer reviewed scientific literature exists?

There are THREE issues, mate.

FIRST is YOUR/OTHERS' assertions/beliefs/argument in SUPPORT of the LIGO claims. That is what I have been trying to get the maths FOR from YOU/OTHERS here to help see how valid/tenable YOUR/OTHERS' 'support' is.

SECOND is LIGO claims themselves; which I have been trying to scrutinize but cannot get anyone to produce THEIR maths to prove said grav-wave from 3 BILLION LYrs away can reach 'here', let alone be discernible over NEARER sourced g-ws 'signals'.

THIRD is THIS is a commments site open to laypersons discussing science news; so relax!

@Lenni, entropy isn't conserved; it can increase. You don't even know what "conservation" means in physics. What it supposedly can't do is decrease; this is not "conservation."

.......and here you go again, you so totally screw up the entire concept of ENTROPY with:

and that entropy is consumed by BHs

The entropy cannot be retrieved

,....... then pull a Shavo & give me credit for it, then to boot you start foaming at mouth something about CONSERVATION OF ENTROPY as if anybody here but you ever brought it up.

Hey, old dude, tell us more about how ENTROPY is "consumed". Huh? At least make a stab at it?

Now followup & explain to us

since matter has been converted into GW energy

.......tell us more about what this transformation concept is that converts (transforms) matter into GW energy. I'll bet you'd like to give Einstein credit for this? Even though he never stated it? Yeah, you & Shavo working out the same playbook here.

.......tell us more about what this transformation concept is that converts (transforms) matter into GW energy.

How bout this...MATTER may not have been "transformed" into GW (that's a pretty silly interpretation of yours, btw), but excess energy generated FROM the two bodies of matter combining, (and not absorbed by them) was...But then, even you will prob'ly admit that everything is energy in one form or another, so maybe it was....

SECOND is LIGO claims themselves; which I have been trying to scrutinize but cannot get anyone to produce THEIR maths to prove said grav-wave from 3 BILLION LYrs away can reach 'here', let alone be discernible over NEARER sourced g-ws 'signals'.

Not that I pretend to understand any of the math involved but this appears to be what you're looking for.

SECOND is LIGO claims themselves; which I have been trying to scrutinize but cannot get anyone to produce THEIR maths to prove said grav-wave from 3 BILLION LYrs away can reach 'here', let alone be discernible over NEARER sourced g-ws 'signals'.

Not that I pretend to understand any of the math involved but this appears to be what you're looking for.

"2.3. Power spectral densityA second commonly used quantity for sensitivity curves is the square root of the PSD orthe amplitude spectral density

6. Concluding remarks:When quantifying the sensitivity of a GW detector and the loudness of a GW source, thereare three commonly used quantities: the characteristic strain, the power spectral density,and the spectral energy density.

You need to learn what "density" is about & how it is derived from General Relativity as the basis of irradiation of all thing Electro-Magnetic & Gravity. It's better know as application of the Inverse Square Law, which if you don't know what that is, then you will never understand why these LIGO detectors simply picked a change of INTENSITY over stable electro-magnetic background noise & a stable gravity field, only to watch the detectors return to previous levels once the so-called WAVE passed after a few nanosecs.

You need to learn what "density" is about & how it is derived from General Relativity as the basis of irradiation of all thing Electro-Magnetic & Gravity. It's better know as application of the Inverse Square Law, which if you don't know what that is, then you will never understand why these LIGO detectors simply picked a change of INTENSITY over stable electro-magnetic background noise & a stable gravity field, only to watch the detectors return to previous levels once the so-called WAVE passed after a few nanosecs.

And they sensed it in a sequential manner (time-wise) between 2 detectors (1100 miles apart)...

Wow, that was pretty loony. General Relativity is not where density is derived from, for starters. Moving right along, it's not defined by anything to do with "the basis of irradiation of all things Electro-Magnetic & Gravity[sic]," whatever that word salad is supposed to refer to. It has nothing to do with "the Inverse Square Law," which is not a law but a type of law. To top it all off the quoted parts don't talk about matter density, which is all one can think when someone talks about deriving density from GRT; they talk about power spectral density and spectral energy density which are completely different concepts from matter density.

There's so much wrong there it's not even worth going further. It's some weird twisted cartoon of science.

General Relativity is not where density is derived from, for starters.

First Schneibo, you need to read it to find out.

quoted parts don't talk about matter density, which is all one can think when someone talks about deriving density from GRT

......like your'e unable to figure out that the author already knows gravity is not derived from density of matter but rather from accumulated quantity of matter, you know, MASS DEPENDENT GRAVITY versus your loony concept of DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY.

Read what? I have no idea what you think I should read. Density? "...the basis of irradiation of all things Electro-Magnetic & Gravity[sic]" (whatever that is supposed to mean)? General Relativity? What "derived" means? Einstein's book on relativity? The Babble? Some supposed "science" site that you and your buddies made up while you were on acid?

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say, "...your loony concept of DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY." First, it's not my concept, and second, it's obvious from Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation that density has an effect on surface gravity. If you want to tell us all you think Newton was wrong, feel free but don't be surprised when you are met with derision.

If you're not going to respond to what I say without editing it, you're lying and there's no point in talking to you.

I said,

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say, "...your loony concept of DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY." First, it's not my concept, and second, it's obvious from Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation that density has an effect on surface gravity. If you want to tell us all you think Newton was wrong, feel free but don't be surprised when you are met with derision.

@Whyde, they did. That's what the ringdown sequence is. Every one of the ripples in the ringdown is a single orbit, and as the BHs get closer and closer together, the orbits come faster and faster, until they coalesce.

@Whyde, they did. That's what the ringdown sequence is. Every one of the ripples in the ringdown is a single orbit, and as the BHs get closer and closer together, the orbits come faster and faster, until they coalesce.

Have you seen the waveform? You should take a look at it.

Ahhh.... I was under the impression it was just one blip and gone...And... did it "ring-UP" first?

There is a considerable noise floor, and only during the last hundreds of milliseconds are the GWs powerful enough to make it to us. We see something less than the last ten orbits or so. Before that the GWs aren't powerful enough to make it above the noise at this extreme distance.

If you're not going to respond to what I say without editing it, you're lying and there's no point in talking to you.

I said, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say, "...your loony concept of DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY." First, it's not my concept, and second, it's obvious from Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation that density has an effect on surface gravity. If you want to tell us all you think Newton was wrong, feel free but don't be surprised when you are met with derision.

Do you have a response to it, or not?

Yeah, my response stands as before, dump your loony ideas of DENSITY DEPENDENT GRAVITY, in addition to that you should dump your latest loony idea about CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY also not found anywhere but among your fellow pseudo-science advocates for the advancement of Perpetual Motion.

Sorry, I'm going with Newton rather than some nutjob #physicscrank on the Internets.

The higher the density, the smaller the radius. The smaller the radius, the shorter the distance. The shorter the distance, the stronger the gravity. It's all right here:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

If you can do math.

Nope, that isn't what the equation states, it's simply your interpretation of it for support of Schwarzschild's black hole math so thoroughly destroyed by Einstein's 1939 paper: "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"........

No, it's not an interpretation. That's exactly what it says. Sorry if you don't understand what a variable in the denominator means because you can't do fractions. BTW this also means you have no idea what the meaning of an inverse square law is, despite your lying about it a couple posts ago.

No, it's not an interpretation. That's exactly what it says. Sorry if you don't understand what a variable in the denominator means because you can't do fractions. BTW this also means you have no idea what the meaning of an inverse square law is, despite your lying about it a couple posts ago.

....and all I need to do to continue reminding you of trying to spin the Fundamental Laws of Physics into Perpetual Motion Mechanics is this:

........you NEVER have attempted to take that on Schneibo, why is that? I guess because you won't, it's because it destroys your Perpetual Motion fantasies of Schwarzschild's black hole math & the self serving spin you put on F(g) = Gmm'/r².

I kinda thought it would look more equal on either side of the peak...

The peak is the point in time when the event horizons touch. At first the centers of the black holes are getting closer to one another and the oribital period rapidly decreases (which is the 'chirp'). After the event horizons touch the orbital period still decreases but the signal strenght drops off because for all intents and purposes its now one black hole that quickly loses its asymmetric shape (that's the ringdown).

There's a good movie of this on wikipedia that shows which part sof the signal correspond to which statehttps://en.wikipe...nal_wave(movie on the right side)

I kinda thought it would look more equal on either side of the peak...

The peak is the point in time when the event horizons touch. At first the centers of the black holes are getting closer to one another and the oribital period rapidly decreases (which is the 'chirp'). After the event horizons touch the orbital period still decreases but the signal strenght drops off because for all intents and purposes its now one black hole that quickly loses its asymmetric shape (that's the ringdown).

There's a good movie of this on wikipedia that shows which part sof the signal correspond to which statehttps://en.wikipe...nal_wave(movie on the right side)

Your Perpetual Motion math does nothing to add gravity to the system, all that changes is the FORCE exerted per unit area of the body which can NEVER go to infinity.

Old dude, high school physics class is where you learn this, however my ten year old already knows this & can do FORCE CALCULATIONS, which comparing my ten year old's age to your age makes you an awfully pathetic choice to be my ten year old's teacher.

.........but TOTAL GRAVITY within the system does not change by varying the FORCE via: "as the radius goes up and down". But this won't matter with you, you'll just come right back & say your Perpetual Motion pseudo-science of CONSERVATION OF GRAVITY is found in General Relativity even though Einstein trashed the entire concept of it in his 1939 paper, "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"

The DENSITY problem here is not what you imagine, the density problem is with accumulating calcification of plaque in your aged brain old dude. It is TRUE, calcification of the brain shrinks the brain size (think "radius" here) while at the same time causing it to become more dense.

There, now you have a better comprehension of the RADIUS vs, DENSITY vs, FORCE issues with regards to all your ranting & raving about things that are high school science issues.

And I said that. The width of a gravity well-- that is, the strength of the gravity in the limit as r goes to many times the size of the gravitating body-- remains the same for the same mass. It's only the surface gravity-- the depth of a gravity well-- that goes up.

And high surface gravity eventually gets so strong that it even stops light. And that's what makes a black hole. For a black hole, the surface is the Schwartzchild radius for that mass.

There's nothing about Einstein's GRT there because you don't need GRT to show black holes. You can do it with Newton's TUG, that very equation we've been talking about, and in fact it was done by, among others, Laplace, in the nineteenth century. So it's still not my idea and never was.

Total gravity for a given mass is the same, it's surface gravity that changes with r. And I told you that, too.

So for any given pair of masses, there is a point for each of them in decreasing r beyond which the escape velocity from its surface gravity will exceed the speed of light; at this point, nothing can escape because nothing can exceed the speed of light. And you don't need GRT to show it; TUG shows it fine.

It's not the amount of mass that makes a black hole; it's the amount of mass *within a certain radius* that does. And all from that simple equation:

F(g) = Gmm'/r²

If you can do the math. And if you don't forget stuff because you have Alzheimer's.

The #physicscranks specialize in bizarre. A substantial portion of them think there's no such thing as gravity and everything is EM. It's pretty nutbar. If you stick around here a while @Cusco you'll see the links to their "Electric Universe" sites, and if you think what they're posting here is nutty you won't even believe what they claim there.

This comment section, jesus christ. From the looks of it, Lenni was mangling physics while simultaneously being a prick and getting down-voted for it... so then he started a burner account called Benni who also spends his time mangling physics? Is that about right?

lenni...benni... whatever your name is. You claim to be a scientist, yet don't even know what scientific discourse is. You outed yourself bro. Why are you so mad in every comment?

You love that 19th century math is that it Schneibo? Easier than Einstein's 20th century use of Differential Equations. Why don't you simply go read what Einstein actually wrote in the process of trashing Schwarzschild's zany brained black hole math, the link is right above.

Last but not least, of course, is density. If you have the same mass in a smaller radius, then you have a higher density. So it's also obvious that it's the density of a mass that determines whether it is a black hole or not.

It is that type of simplistic-maths 'thinking' that has led so many 'mathematical-theoretical' cosmologists/astrophysicists to 'believe' in un-physical objects/concepts instead of following reality-physical evidence/logics.

How many times are you going to ignore this, DS? I already had all this out with @rpenner years ago in OLD physorg/physforum (now defunct)?

If 'density' alone, rather than a 'critical cumulative quantity' of energy-mass) was the determinant of forming a black hole, then the densities achieved during collisions in LHC (not to mention orders of magnitude greater at alleged big bang 'beginning') should produce 'micro' black holes in LHC; but it doesn't, hence NO 'density determinant' as such for BH feature!

If 'density' alone, rather than a 'critical cumulative quantity' of energy-mass) was the determinant of forming a black hole, then the densities achieved during collisions in LHC (not to mention orders of magnitude greater at alleged big bang 'beginning') should produce 'micro' black holes in LHC; but it doesn't, hence NO 'density determinant' as such for BH feature!

OK, DS?

RC,I don't believe DS is saying density alone is the determinant.That said, I believe it kinda goes like this;X amount of mass get's packed tighter together due to gravity, reducing the volume of a body, causing a smaller radius, subsequently changing he curvature of the body. Which, in turn, changes the curvature of space/time.And so on and so on... to the point of matching escape velocity of C.Pretty easy to visualize if you think on it...

RC,I don't believe DS is saying density alone is the determinant.That said, I believe it kinda goes like this;X amount of mass get's packed tighter together due to gravity, reducing the volume of a body, causing a smaller radius, subsequently changing he curvature of the body. Which, in turn, changes the curvature of space/time.And so on and so on... to the point of matching escape velocity of C.Pretty easy to visualize if you think on it...

Yes; a MINIMUM 'critical mass' QUANTITY. :) But DS is baldly stating that 'density' determines if a feature becomes 'black' or not. He has often attacked/insulted OTHERS for not being precise/clear in their terms/claims, yet he keeps making just as bad statements himself and just ignores corrections of HIS understandings etc. If only DS could lose some of his ego and malice, and actually PAY ATTENTION instead of ignoring/denying/insulting etc, he might actually learn rather than pretending he is correct when he isn't.

I don't believe DS is saying density alone is the determinant.That said, I believe it kinda goes like this;X amount of mass get's packed tighter together due to gravity, reducing the volume of a body, causing a smaller radius, subsequently changing he curvature of the body. Which, in turn, changes the curvature of space/time.And so on and so on... to the point of matching escape velocity of C.Pretty easy to visualize if you think on it...

And THAT said:you might even get by, not with light speed reduction, but just increasing the curvature to within a certain radii.

But DS is baldly stating that 'density' determines if a feature becomes 'black' or not.

I think you are getting that part wrong Cher.

A star that has 10 times more stuff in him than the Sun has gets to the point that he don't anything left to burn so he can't stay as big, will collapse and when he collapses enough (you know, like becomes dense enough) he will be the black hole.

Judging from the quoted comments, it doesn't sound like @RC quite gets it.

Whether it's a black hole or not is solely and only dependent on whether the escape velocity from its surface is less than or equal to/greater than the speed of light.

The escape velocity depends on the surface gravity. The surface gravity depends on the mass and the radius (see Newton's equation for TUG). You can call the mass/radius factor out by calling it "density," and most of us do. But the mass and radius are right there in Newton's equation for TUG:

F(g) = mm'/r²

It's not a matter of "calling it black." It's a matter of the definition of "black hole," which is that the escape velocity from the surface is greater than or equal to the speed of light. If it is, then light cannot escape. If you have some better name for that, @RC, let's hear it, but it's not going to make any difference because the definition will be the same.

The understanding is clear already re the cumulative mass contracting beneath its eh limits to a certain density within that eh. The thing that I tried to explain for those reading who may misinterpret DS's earlier statement (that 'density determining black feature') is that density per se is not enough for gravity effect to contain the quantum forces that would explode that dense mass UNLESS said mass was of sufficient cumulative quantity to so contrain the quantum forces trying to tear it apart.

So, please in future try to make statements that reflect the whole context/forces/factors etc, instead of claiming/stating things that are plainly misleading or ignore what I keep explaining to BOTH 'sides'; ie:

MICRO black holes can NOT form/exist because there is insufficient cumulative mass; IRRESPECTIVE of the 'density' of said insufficient cumulative mass.

That's all that needs to be realized by ALL 'sides' above. OK? Good luck. :)

So how is it all this gravity started showing up if not by accumulation of additional MASS, gravity must be present FIRST without which nothing can be compacted leading to increased DENSITY. Yeah WhyGuy, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Or how about asking it like this: Which came first, the DENSITY or the GRAVITY? I can tell you for certain that it's neither one.

It's not a matter of "calling it black." It's a matter of the definition of "black hole," which is that the escape velocity from the surface is greater than or equal to the speed of light. If it is, then light cannot escape. If you have some better name for that,

....and there you go again, thinking it's a cute piece of psycho-babble pegging the Electro-Magnetic Wave to the Escape Velocity Kinematics of a particle of MASS governed by 1/2mv².

There has never been an observation that gravity can either prevent the movement of or reduce the velocity an electro-magnetic wave. If gravity could do this, then electro-magnetic waves are no longer uniquely E=mc², but according to you are as subject to 1/2mv² as any particle of MASS.

Electro-magnetic Waves are not subject to your goofy conjecture of ESCAPE VELOCITY, which according to the Fundamental Laws of Physics apply only to MASS, but not to EM ENERGY.

@Lenni, I am surprised you have what it takes to post here again considering how thoroughly you were pwnt.

The only remaining question is whether you have no pride, or are too stupid to do the math.

Hey, Schneibo, Density Dude, why be "surprised"?

I keep telling you that you're an absolutely terrific piece of ENTERTAINMENT for me at this site, that you're LIVING proof calcification of the brain shrinks brain size (think "radius" here) while at the same time causing it to become more dense to the point nothing can get through, not even: "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses" Albert Einstein 1939.

Actually, I read that before; which is why I've since been asking for the maths SPECIFICALLY applied by LIGO 'modeling/analysis' teams.

Here SOME flaws I saw then:

- 'space-time' construct is NOT real space construct per se, so all such models/analyses and interpretations/patterns are NOT REAL things, just 'artifact' of 'abstract construct' assumptions.

- they admit their approach/techniques stem from GENERAL lab/naive procedures/assumptions/contexts wherein 'source signal', 'system/background noise' and 'intentional test signal inputs' CAN BE 'isolated/evaluated' for respective contribution/effect in a 'run' analysis; whereas in REAL WORLD LIGO context can NOT so 'isolate' g-w SOURCES SIGNAL/NOISE while testing!

- 'space-time' construct is NOT real space construct per se, so all such models/analyses and interpretations/patterns are NOT REAL things, just 'artifact' of 'abstract construct' assumptions.

- they admit their approach/techniques stem from GENERAL lab/naive procedures/assumptions/contexts wherein 'source signal', 'system/background noise' and 'intentional test signal inputs' CAN BE 'isolated/evaluated' for respective contribution/effect in a 'run' analysis; whereas in REAL WORLD LIGO context can NOT so 'isolate' g-w SOURCES SIGNAL/NOISE while testing!

- etc.

Thanks. :)

Wow. You should write a paper on your observations and submit it for publication.

'space-time' construct is NOT real space construct per se, so all such models/analyses and interpretations/patterns are NOT REAL things, just 'artifact' of 'abstract construct' assumptions.

they admit their approach/techniques stem from GENERAL lab/naive procedures/assumptions/contexts wherein 'source signal', 'system/background noise' and 'intentional test signal inputs' CAN BE 'isolated/evaluated' for respective contribution/effect in a 'run' analysis; whereas in REAL WORLD LIGO context can NOT so 'isolate' g-w SOURCES SIGNAL/NOISE while testing!

You should write a paper on your observations and submit it for publication. Could you show me your math?

If you are familiar with my postings here at PO and elsewhere, you will be aware that I don't have the time/energy/health/inclination for such 'piecemeal' publish-or-perish publications which cannot treat the whole. I'll publish my reality-based ToE physics/maths work complete/consistent in due course. :)

I reality-check professional/amateur claims, ideas, perspectives; not only to encourage objective, open discourse on science/logics news/issues in question, but also to 'soundboard' my own reality-based insights/perspectives; and occasionally hinting/pointing to particularly important 'reality-checks'; which FYI, I am being increasingly confirmed correct in, on many fronts, by more recent mainstream discovery/reviews. I have already alluded to such 'confirming news' over last few months. One such regards my longstanding caution/insight re FLAWED Type Ia supernova 'data and interpretations' cited to supposedly 'support' Accelerated Expansion claims by Perlmutter et al. This latest news-

-should give an idea of the MANY things which (as I have been pointing out to IMP-9 etc) can VARY 'locally' and 'along line of sight'; making 'standard candle' assumptions/interpretations unreliable. :)

Obviously the people of the world are lucky that there are people like you around, and we at physorg should be grateful that you have decided to share your wisdom with us. All scientists everywhere must be very worried that there is an intellect of such calibre scrutinizing their work.

Twas ever thus! [humor :)]

Seriously, though, you could say that ALL INTELLECTS (be they 'lone independents' or 'collaborating with other individuals/groups') engaged in the OBJECTIVE scientific endeavor are doing that ALL THE TIME (to varying degrees of specialty/generality).

Objective selfless application for the greater good is what sets the true scientists apart from the biased/mercenary types which (as recent events/news has all too painfully made clear) are happy enough to promote/exploit 'expedient science' or outright 'corrupt science', at great cost to the greater good.

Through the ages, SOMEONE HAS TO come along to do the reality-checks, however unwelcome, SS. :)

You are wasted here, you will never get the respect you deserve. Even if you do convince anybody here what difference would it make? These people are without influence in academia, their opinions carry no weight, educating them is pointless.

Yours is the superior intellect, you should quit Physorg and take it to a forum where you will be appreciate by people fit to be your students.

My self-imposed scientific task (embarked on at age nine) was to satisfy MY curiosity about 'the universe' before I died. Having already noted by age nine that the usual 'grown ups' were easily influenced/sidetracked by personal/religious/social/mercenary interests and group affiliations/dynamics/beliefs, I made a conscious decision to be and remain always an INDEPENDENT and OBJECTIVE scientific researcher in order to minimize the detrimental effects/influences by the now-well-recognized subjective and external 'pitfalls' which many scientists so easily fall into (eg, specific 'publish or perish' imperatives; and/or general 'personal respect/glory/wealth/power' seeking; etc). So I do not 'seek' respect/other self-seeking 'rewards'; and only wish to 'convince' others to THINK and UNDERSTAND for THEMSELVES, objectively and fairly, as best they can, before THEY die.

Please note, Ira: recent mainstream cosmo/quantum/astro discoveries/reviews are doing that whether I 'wished it' or not. :) I only ever point out that fact to you/others whenever you/others need your own claims/lies about science/me reality-checked to reflect the actual reality and not your/others' own 'version' based on prejudices/feuds and otherwise irrelevant/malicious opinions/motives. Not bad, hey, Ira; that I am the one being so confirmed correct all along on many fronts, while you/others still persist in trolling/chopping/deriding.

Oh, Ira, I realize you needed to chop the sentence to make your 'joke'.

For the record:

So I do not 'seek' respect/other self-seeking 'rewards'; and only wish to 'convince' others to THINK and UNDERSTAND for THEMSELVES, objectively and fairly, as best they can, before THEY die.

Which obviously held no meaning for you, Ira; since you prefer to 'joke', not 'think'? :)

You are wasted here, you will never get the respect you deserve. Even if you do convince anybody here what difference would it make? These people are without influence in academia, their opinions carry no weight, educating them is pointless.

Yours is the superior intellect, you should quit Physorg and take it to a forum where you will be appreciate by people fit to be your students.

@SteveSyou, sir, have won the internetz today! you just made me spit coffee all over the dog!i don't know what was better: your comments or her repliesLMFAO

And there it is for all @Forum readers to see, again; your juvenile preoccupation with your personal insulting and trolling agenda placed above courteous, objective science discourse and comprehension of the important things at stake for science and humanity's future. The phrase "Casting Pearls before Swine" fits your mindless snuffling and wallowing in the mud while you miss the whole point and purpose of open science discourse on its objective merits not the person/source presenting it; like casting pearls before a 'swine mentality' it would seem insofar as your lack of appreciation of its implications for science is concerned, CS....as your above quoted trolling stupidity and malice unambiguously demonstrates for all to see yet again. My apologies to actual pigs; they can't help being swine.

evidence that has been validated by others who have checked:to date you've made 7,455 postsstill no evidence at all whatsoever for your claims

that is 7,455,000 characters wasted372.75 wasted hours (considering the 3 min waiting period to post)

that isn't juvenile, insulting or trolling - it's a point of fact that was validated by the site themselves(although my post count is lower because they've deleted a sh*t load of your pseudoscience posts)

you will post after this to:-argue that everyone else is wrong, and that only you're being objective-only you know the answers-everyone else somehow demonstrates or proves you right, even though you can't actually prove this yourself with evidence-everyone else misses the point-cross post and argue in other threads

Don't you just 'hate it'!...I'm the one being confirmed correct all along on many fronts by more recent astro/cosmo/quantum physics discovery/review; while you/'gang' of bot-voting deniers and insult trolls are being shown up as ignorant ego-tripping trolls in DENIAL of REAL OBJECTIVE SCIENCE; as you/gang cleave to increasingly falsified 'beliefs'!

others who have checked:

And just WHO would these "others" be? The bot-voting gang of trolls who've been proven WRONG all along; and so just evade, insult, lie to distract from that recorded pattern of FAILURE of your ego-tripping ignorance and lies campaigns? Yeah, those "others" (your TROLL gang) are 'reliable witnesses' (NOT). You're dishonest, deluded, as is the rest of your nasty little 'gang', CS.

still no evidence at all whatsoever for your claims.

You BOASTED you DID NOT READ/UNDERSTAND, so how would you KNOW, you nasty troll.

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.